Lens choices 16-35 or 17-40

I didn't think i'd fart around so much with the choices, but man, its really getting to me.

I just bought a 17-55 about 2 months ago, but now it looks like it will be sold for either a 16-35 or 17-40 (just picked up a 1D MK2)

I love the 24-105, however its just not wide enough for me on my 1D MK2 body.

I am shooting weddings, so having something good for low light is a plus, but then again i'm not afraid to use flash.

So doing some more searching, I came across this review.

The flare issue is 'kinda' scaring me. Does anyone else have this problem with the vI of the 16-35?

What would your ideal choice be? My set will soon hopefully be a 70-200 on my 20D, then something wide on my 1D.

i have the same 'problem'

just got a 1D, and i want to go some wider than the 24-105
17-40, 16-35I, 16-35II or the sigma 12-24, witch would give me the same wideangle the 10-22 gave me on the 20D

I'm really contemplating the 17-40. Specially for the price. I'd save a bundle which I can use down the road compared to the 16-35. I rarely shoot at 2.8 with my flash as well. If I'm really stuck for a low light situation, then I've got my 50 I can pull out.

Gujustud wrote in post #3438352
I'm really contemplating the 17-40. Specially for the price. I'd save a bundle which I can use down the road compared to the 16-35. I rarely shoot at 2.8 with my flash as well. If I'm really stuck for a low light situation, then I've got my 50 I can pull out.

I find that the 24-105 on my 5D is plenty wide for me.
I bought the 16-35L earlier this year used, locally, at a great bargain, and that's really the only reason I bought it. I used it once at the beach to get those nice and sweeping shots, which was nice, but really never needed the extra stop since the sun was blazing. I usually use either my 24-105 or 50 1.4 indoors so certainly the extra stop doesn't come into play there.

So I decided that the 16-35 (or 17-40) range on a full frame is really a special purpose lens for me. So I am selling the 16-35, and have purchased the 17-40 instead to fill the empty feeling I will inevitably get selling the 16-35.

In all honestly, I probably will eventually sell the 17-40. The moment I feel that it's staying in my bag way to often, it's out the door. In the meantime I have used the extra cash towards primes. (Just recently bough used copies of 35L, 85 1.8, 135L)

So unless you do CRITICAL work in the 16-35 range and absolutely need the stop/DOF of the 16-35 f2.8, I would say the 17-40 is a fantastic bargain, and a used one can be had for $550. Great, great bargain...

nicksan wrote in post #3439271
I find that the 24-105 on my 5D is plenty wide for me.
I bought the 16-35L earlier this year used, locally, at a great bargain, and that's really the only reason I bought it. I used it once at the beach to get those nice and sweeping shots, which was nice, but really never needed the extra stop since the sun was blazing. I usually use either my 24-105 or 50 1.4 indoors so certainly the extra stop doesn't come into play there.

So I decided that the 16-35 (or 17-40) range on a full frame is really a special purpose lens for me. So I am selling the 16-35, and have purchased the 17-40 instead to fill the empty feeling I will inevitably get selling the 16-35.

In all honestly, I probably will eventually sell the 17-40. The moment I feel that it's staying in my bag way to often, it's out the door. In the meantime I have used the extra cash towards primes. (Just recently bough used copies of 35L, 85 1.8, 135L)

So unless you do CRITICAL work in the 16-35 range and absolutely need the stop/DOF of the 16-35 f2.8, I would say the 17-40 is a fantastic bargain, and a used one can be had for $550. Great, great bargain...

what he said +1

Thanks everyone for your responses. After about 1-2 weeks of research I ended up purchasing a 17-40. In the end if I really don't like it I can always upgrade, but I think its gonna be a good choice.

Gujustud wrote in post #3438174
So doing some more searching, I came across this review.

The flare issue is 'kinda' scaring me. Does anyone else have this problem with the vI of the 16-35?

What would your ideal choice be?

My ideal choice would be the 16-35II. It has much less flare problem than the first version. It also is much sharper in the corners than the v1 and also has f2.8 for lower light situations

Yeah I heard that it was sharper in the corners, but with my 1D MK2 and 20d, I probably wouldn't of noticed it as much. Also the 'used' price of a II was around $1400, which was much more than I was willing to spend right now.

I think with the purchase of the 17-40 for now, I'll save some extra saved up for my purchase of a 70-200 2.8IS down the road. Then I'll be set.

IMO, it's a budget question. If money wasn't an issue at all, I'd personally go for the 16-35 Mk II. I kind of got sold on it after reading this article:
http://www.16-9.net …1635ii_a/c1635i​i_a11.html

After playing with my 70-200 f/2.8 this weekend at an indoor event, I'm sold on getting f/2.8 or faster any time I can afford it.

As for bang for the buck, I've had a chance to play with the 17-40mm and it's definitely a great buy for the price. I'm sure you can't go wrong.